“Sovereignty The supreme, absolute, and uncontrollable power by which an independent state is governed and from which all specific political powers are derived;“
I believe that the people are soverign via the British constitution. As opposed to the monarch being soverign. Or the parliament .Or the Judiciary. (the Crown temple) Or the church. As in times past.
And we have been since 1688.
What this means is that only the people can make law.
And we have made it. It was made 300 odd years ago. and was to stand for all time.
we dont need any new laws. we haven’t made any new laws, as far as I’m aware.
significant ones anyhow.
I’d like to compile in this post my reasoning to support that lawful state of soveringty.
Anyone contributions would be welcome.
It is an important point to make in a court situation. Where you are treated as subordinate to a judge, or indeed parliamentary Acts. Or even Imperial Acts.
Because if the people are soverign then you are not subject to any authority except laws made directly by the people.
Our foundational law the Bill of Rights is a powerful indication to me that we people are soverign.
Remembering that a generation prior to the Glorious revolution of 1688, the parliament held soverignty.
In that turbulent century where the westminster system evolved from trial and error and much bloodshed, as protestants tried to free themselves of rome and the babylonian system. They did indeed see parliamentary soverignty as a viable alternative to monarchy.
that perhaps this was a way for people to rule themsleves.
But in practice parliamentary soverignty proved more tyrannical than any monarch. they had learnt this lesson the hard way.
“because the Parliament had forsaken their rule, the fundamental Laws of England, and exercised an arbitrary and tyrannical power over the consciences, lives, liberties, and estates; and instanced in me and others,” John Lillburne 1653, who had fought and won the war to instill parliamentary soverignty not long prior. (http://www.strecorsoc.org/docs/defence1.html)
So in looking at the Bill of Rights, I keep in mind the times. That men were well aquainted with the evils of parliamentary soverignty, and had no wish to return to it.
So reading the Bill of Rights it says the people being protestants are making this foundational law in its content.
But more importantly , to me , on this question is that it is called a “bill”
What is a bill?
“A bill is a proposed law under consideration by a legislature. A bill does not become law until it is passed by the legislature and, in most cases, approved by the executive. Once a bill has been enacted into law, it is called an Act or a statute.”
A bill does not have the force of law . Its merely a proposal. why on earth would they call their foundational law a “bill”. would this not make it seem powerless?
It was passed through parliament in 1689 and became an Act. Yet the name bill was retained.
I can think of no other explanation than that they were retaining the name Bill to reinforce the point that it was law the moment the people wrote it. It was not subject to parliament’s approval. They had had a gutful of parliamentary masters a generation earlier.
And so important was this point, that the name “bill” carried forward to the American revolution, and they copied the name “bill”.
I believe that this in and of itself shows us that the people hold soverignty.
More later on this topic. An important one when refusing to be a slave to Australian parliament, in your every day.